You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

"Too many times theories of how the human foot functions and therefore how mechanically inducted foot problems are treated have been presented as if they were facts. The dogmatic adherence that sometimes ensues from such an approach has frequently stifled the evolution of foot mechanics. "

Says: "Too many times theories of podiatric biomechanics have been presented as if they were facts. The dogmatic adherence that sometimes ensues from such an approach has often stifled the evolution of podiatric biomechanics..."

Those that know the history here and the issues I had regarding my work being correctly represented within this book will surely see why I'm getting a little bit ****** off with Stephen Albert. :bang: Copy, paste, quick thesaurus to change a couple of words and Bob's your Uncle. Is this plagiarism?

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. - Wiki...so it must be, right?

"Too many times theories of how the human foot functions and therefore how mechanically inducted foot problems are treated have been presented as if they were facts. The dogmatic adherence that sometimes ensues from such an approach has frequently stifled the evolution of foot mechanics. "

Says: "Too many times theories of podiatric biomechanics have been presented as if they were facts. The dogmatic adherence that someties ensues from such an approach has often stifled the evolution of podiatric biomechanics..."

Those that know the history here and the issues I had regarding my work being correctly represented within this book will surely see why I'm getting a little bit ****** off with Stephen Albert. :bang: Copy, paste, quick thesaurus to change a couple of words and Bob's your Uncle. Is this plagiarism?

Click to expand...

I woudn't worry Simon, this type of thing is very common. I can't count the number of times I have seen my illustrations being displayed in lectures of speakers at conferences and on webpages of podiatrists where there is no mention that these are my original illustrations. I really don't like it, but I have had it happen so many times, I no longer become irritated by it. Instead, I have taken it to be a form of respect.

You, my friend, are currently one of the most original thinkers in podiatric biomechanics so this won't be the first time this happens to you. The bottom line is that some people simply don't have any original thoughts of their own and must steal from others in order to make themselves look more intelligent. It's been happening for centuries and, unfortunately, it will continue to happen as long as there are few consequences for such actions.

This one is interesting http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/7/S1/A8 and fits with one of the approaches I've been testing out clinically over the last couple of years. I seem to be getting good results using asymmetrical stiffness in foot orthoses in athletes demonstrating asymmetrical leg stiffness via clinical "hopping test" assessments. I've used this mainly in patients with patella tendonitis. I've been employing the more compliant devices on the compliant leg side here- my observations suggest this is usually the injured side in these individuals. I've also used more compliant heel lifts on the shorter side in limb length discrepancy- my theory being that the compliant surface allows the shorter limb to stay stiffer with reduced knee flexion and therefore functionally longer.

BTW, here is the formula I use for the hopping tests: K = 40 x SF2 x mass

Where:
K is the leg stiffness (N/m)
40 is (2x∏)2
SF is the step frequency (steps per second)
Mass is measured in Kg

The formula is simply the equation of a mass bouncing up & down on a spring. It's crude, but it seems to be sensitive enough to pick up asymmetries in the direction that one should predict them to be in. For example, my scores = Left 15,888 N/m; Right 11,610 N/m- no cruciate ligaments on right- right?